I instruct my agents to build UI exclusively with bootstrap 5, jQuery, and HTMX.
Every app is fast, responsive, progressive, small, and most importantly: it fits in my brain and I can maintain it. No build step or really any tooling at all.
Curious what jQuery brings for you these days? My favorite jQuery features got implemented in the vanilla DOM APIs (document.querySelector and fetch being the big one for me). Now I'm curious if I'm missing out.
jQuery is 30kB, there's not a lot of heaviness. In a world of React, Vue, htmx and what have you, 30kB is nothing.
If you like the syntax and functionality of jQuery, or if you're just use to it now, there's very little reason to no use it, and speed and size certainly isn't a reason. 15 years ago, maybe, but not in 2026.
Makes sense to me. Their motto was "Write less, do more", i.e. its conciseness was a major selling point, but that seems to have been forgotten now that its other selling points have been rendered obsolete.
I recall scripts ending up as little as one-third the size of vanilla JS, when rewritten using jQuery (where the website was otherwise using jQuery anyway).
I've been thinking the same about the future of frameworks. Many of the complexities in today's frameworks exist for "developer experience", given that's less and less relevant by the month, it will be interesting to see the tech stacks chosen going forward.
IMO it is literally not possible for a medium+ jQuery app to fit in a brain or be maintained easily (especially without TypeScript). That's why React et al were invented. It is smaller, faster, no build step for sure, but I would never reach for jQuery for any possibly ambitious app.
If you are using mostly agents and don't actually need to have it in your brain, then I'd probably go with strict TypeScript at the very least for verifiability purposes
> I rather have 30 day vacations, a proper life with 40h work week, healthcare, union membership, than SV salaries
This is an appeal to mediocrity and it doesn't really hold when comparing EU to Silicon Valley tech jobs. Young engineers in the Silicon Valley (or NYC, or Seattle) have excellent health care, generous vacation and other benefits, and they also make substantially more money.
Why would a young, ambitious engineering graduate care about taking 30 days off when they have the opportunity to work on frontier tech that is only available in the US? And make an absurd salary doing it? Healthcare is also less of a concern because 20 somethings and 30 somethings barely use any social benefits anyway. And like I said earlier, they also have exceptional private health care through their employer.
This claim that the European lifestyle is somehow better despite the extreme salary difference really just doesn't hold when comparing to early/mid-career tech workers in the US.
That is what late capitalism expects, 20 something year olds willing to do whatever it takes to get that dream job, changing the world with code, as if.
The games industry and Hollywood have that lesson very well thought out.
> Did they not ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some?
Ukraine is never going to retake the territory they've lost without European soldiers on the ground. Macron famously said that he would have to send troops to Odesa and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine. Meanwhile Putin has captured even more land and is now actively bombarding Kyiv.
It is painfully obvious that Europe lacks the political will to do any kind of substantial intervention. The war is at a complete standstill and it will last for another horrible decade if no concessions are made.
Not being able to take the territory, having a ceasefire over the territory, and actually conceding the territory are three different things. The world is full of unceded occupied areas. Korea. Taiwan. Northern Cyprus. Palestine. Nagorno-Karabakh. Transnistria.
Ukraine rightly has no interest in ceding land to achieve a temporary ceasefire to allow Russia to re-arm and then attack again.
Meanwhile it is also important that we don't have two nuclear armed states (France and Russsia) officially at war.
I'm not excited to have France and Russia in direct conflict, but having two nuclear states at war would not be anything new. There's been China/USSR, India/Pakistan, India/China, and if you want to consider wars that mostly exist on paper at this point, North Korea/USA.
>The war is at a complete standstill and it will last for another horrible decade if no concessions are made.
There is a slight hope that the current Russian regime will collapse before then and be replaced by one that doesn't want to continue the war. (Though, that said, it could equally well be replaced by a regime that's even more ultranationalist than the current one.)
While Europe certainly does lack the political will to make a substantial intervention, it's not just a question of political will. There is the small matter of not starting the third world war to consider.
There’s no way a single datacenter costing a couple of billion dollars can store “all Internet traffic the NSA can access”, unless the traffic the NSA can access is a microscopic fraction of the total Internet traffic.
Think about it. The Internet runs on tens of thousands of massive datacenters. Thousands are being built as we speak. Obviously a single datacenter cannot hold an appreciable fraction of that.
BTW, the total budget of the NSA is less than the R&D budget of a FAANG company, so if you find yourself believing that they might have alien-level technology far beyond Google and AWS, you’re watching too much TV.
People said/wrote in the past that what NSA and other intelligence agencies did was to gather data and store the meta data. The actually traffic got processed for the meta data, and small amount of the traffic got sorted out and also stored.
I would suspect that today they also process the traffic for llms and thus store a bit more of the traffic as weight and biases. All that can be done distributed and to different degrees based on how much access they got and under what operational conditions.
Regarding storage, a single data center using only slow but dense storage (magnetic tapes) can store far more data than a data center providing regular web services.
“They’re not as good at violating your civil liberties as you think they are”
isn’t very comforting. They are still doing it at scale and i’m not too keen on opening the back door for them myself.
> The Internet runs on tens of thousands of massive datacenters.
"The Internet" would require 1000 times less servers if it wasn't running off Python scripts in Docker containers in VMs in a virtual overlay network. (I'm exaggerating these numbers only slightly.)
Sure. But a government agency has secretly rebuilt all the same infrastructure without Python, on a shoestring budget compared to what Big Tech is spending, yet it’s a lot more efficient than what they use, right?
Caveat: I have zero experience with USA government agencies. The spying tech from other countries I'm familiar with are beige box routers made by network engineering types with embedded firmware written in C inside.
I think spying on traffic is just a massively simpler task than generating content.
It doesn't need to store the payloads itself. It stores the metadata of connections and probably the fingerprints of the content passing through the Internet. "The headers of the whole Internet" could be physically stored in a single datacenter.
EU is in a precarious situation with Mistral. If you look at their investor sheet, it's primarily American and other foreign investors with some token amount coming from within the EU. It seems like this is positioning as an acquisition play, most likely by a foreign AI tech firm.
We can look at Heart Aerospace for an example of a European future-tech company that warned the EU repeatedly about the regulatory and capital market being uncompetitive, and then within 2 years just relocated entirely to the US.
My suspicion is that Mistral does not have enough money and enough access to GPU compute to be competitive long-term. And it will most likely end up as an acquisition.
" And it will most likely end up as an acquisition." if they were really a thread, OAI / Anthropic would probably have swallowed them up by now, they're just going to go a decade as a EU zombie consultancy.
I'll be surprised if there was actually any legal advice at all. And if there was it was probably pertaining only to the legality of the software project itself, not actually hosting and running an instance with the explicit goal of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website.
The software project itself is probably fine, but the legal risk is always going to be with the person that hosts it with the intention of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website. Seems like that could run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Host the infra in countries unfriendly to the US and its legal framework apparatus. Continually package the archive as torrents for distribution globally.
Explain to me why that matters at all in an ethical sense. Especially given the scraping / pirating that's gone on by all of these companies in the last number of years.
> salivating at the thought to prove to our EU neighbors how strong we meant it when we said we would accept to oppose the US in case of military attack and I think they knew we may actually mean it and not back down when it start
No offense to France, I don't really care one way or another, but didn't Macron also say he would deploy French troops in Ukraine? Where are those troops? Surely Ukraine is an "EU neighbor". They're currently suffering from an actual aggressor (Putin), not merely theoretical (Trump).
No, it’s a very strong indicator that a peace deal will never be signed until unconditional surrender. Because concerns about NATO troops in Ukraine is main reason why Russia started this.
So I would recommend making sure to inform yourself properly rather than assuming what you read (or thought you read) is correct
> Surely Ukraine is an "EU neighbor". They're currently suffering from an actual aggressor (Putin), not merely theoretical (Trump).
But as you said, they're NOT EU, not in an official military alliance with France. If you cannot see the difference between the two situation, I can't make it any clearer for you.
If you're saying "we should do the same for those that are out that for those that are in", what you are saying is "being in has no purpose, why take the commitment". I believe your point of view is as wrong as can be.
> The situation in Ukraine, which has been under invasion by Russian troops for the past two years, was deteriorating. The war was getting bogged down. "In any case, in the coming year, I'm going to have to send guys to Odesa," said the president before a handful of guests. [1]
This was 2+ years ago and in the years since Russia has captured even more territory and is now bombarding Kyiv. And still no French troops.
Well, you'll notice how Russia just ignored what Macron said and proceeded with their attempted conquest of Ukraine anyway. Because it's just "game theory". It's just "tit for tat".
You have events completly backward, Russia was already invading when Macron said it. If you can't even get years in the right order you're not really arguing in good faith.
The point is that Russia didn't just turn around and go home when Macron threatened to send French troops to Ukraine. Because everyone knew they weren't actually going to do it. And they didn't.
Exactly, unless they ignore that and decide based on precedent. But after we fence them in with arguments, evidence, AND precedence then surely.. oh nope, they could ignore those things and talk about reliance interest! I'm sure someone wrote down exactly how much reliance interest is "sufficient" to justify doing something else though. No? Gosh it sounds like a rigorous process and all but I'm starting to think maybe they just do whatever they want
Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them.
Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice.
He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were, depending on whether there is evidence of poisoning from the lead, either provably or not provably harmed.
Thus it is open to him to interpret their question as one that is not so focused on novel constitutional rights.
Again, the plaintiffs choose the argument. They choose to use a statute, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, that starts:
> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [...]
and what they said they had been deprived of is their substantive due process rights.
The plaintiffs brought a Constitutional argument. The court ruled on the Constitutional argument.
When you file a lawsuit you basically say two things:
1. Defendant(s) did this things which harmed me.
2. This violates these specific laws and you list those laws and explain how the things from #1 violate them.
The trial court determines which of the things in #1 that you allege are true. Then, if they determine that at least some of them are true, they figure out which of the specific laws from #2 were violated.
The losing party can appeal. The appellate court takes as given whichever of the things in #1 that the trial court found to be true, and just reviews the trial court's application of the laws.
It is possible that the trial court will notice (and it they don't the defendant will bring it to their attention) that even if everything you claim in #1 is true, it would not violate any of the laws you listed in #2. The trial court will them dismiss the case unless you file an amendment that fixes the problem. The dismissal will be "without prejudice" which means you can later file again with a hopefully better drafted complaint.
The important thing here is you don't just go to courts saying "These people hurt me in this way, please punish them". You have to be specific, saying "These people broke these specific laws. Here are the things they did that broke those laws".
In this case plaintiffs said those laws were ones that had not before been interpreted as applying to their situation. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appellate court decided that those laws indeed do not apply, so dismissed the case.
They are not saying plaintiffs were not injured. Plaintiffs are free to continue legal action--they just have to sue using laws that do apply to their situation.
Yes, but the court in this case, is taking a particular interpretation that overstates the novelty of the rights claim.
The people bringing the lawsuit are not in fact asserting a right to clean water, they are asserting a right to not be deliberately poisoned by deception.
Does that mean you can build precedents with "matchfixing"? Like pay the plaintiff under the table to throw his case by presenting really bad arguments? And then subsequent cases must reference that result?
Every app is fast, responsive, progressive, small, and most importantly: it fits in my brain and I can maintain it. No build step or really any tooling at all.
reply